3 ms·

> Is this article sensationalist? Yes. The idea that a couple of degrees rise in temperature makes most of the Earth uninhabitable is nonsense. Two simple obse

by pdonis 4y ago

> Is this article sensationalist? Yes. The idea that a couple of degrees rise in temperature makes most of the Earth uninhabitable is nonsense. Two simple observations will help to put all of this in a better perspective: (1) The range of human habitation on Earth is limited by cold, not heat: the hottest areas of Earth are inhabited; the coldest are not. (Also, in the range that is inhabited, humans find it more difficult to adapt to cold than to heat--extreme cold causes more deaths.) (2) The temperature rise is not uniform over Earth; in the hottest regions (the tropics), the temperature rise is much less than the average, while in the coldest regions (the poles), it is significantly more than average. Putting these two observations together makes it clear that the overall effect of a couple of degrees rise in average temperature will most likely be to increase the portion of Earth that is habitable for humans, not decrease it. Adding in the fact that humans can and will adapt to these changes, just as we have been adapting to change throughout human history, makes it even less likely that the net impact will be negative--if only the alarmists will stop trying to get huge amounts of resources squandered on "mitigation" efforts that will cost far more than any putative benefits they might provide.

hollerith 4y ago
>extreme cold causes more deaths [than extreme heat] How would you convince a skeptic that that is actually true?
- pdonis 4y ago
  https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths Or, if you are wondering if Lomborg is a partisan source, look at the study in The Lancet that he references: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
  - hollerith 4y ago
    Thanks.
syzarian 4y ago
The focus on temperature is a bit off in my opinion. Warming the planet by a few degrees centigrade should be thought of as massively increasing energy into the weather system. This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order. There is also the fact that making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people. It’s a much better investment of time/wealth to spend it on mitigation than what humanity currently focuses on. Life on Earth will continue regardless of what we do. What may not continue is how we currently live.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > Warming the planet by a few degrees centigrade should be thought of as massively increasing energy into the weather system. But it doesn't, not "massively". "Warming" here means increasing air temperatures, but the atmosphere is tiny considered as a heat sink. > This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order. Alarmists might claim this, but there isn't any evidence for it. A far more likely source of disruption in the world order is alarmist claims themselves. > making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people. People already manage to grow things in Siberia (and in some colder parts of Canada) despite the temperature. That will only improve as the region warms. As for infrastructure, that's what adaptation is for: as more people want to move there, you build the infrastructure. Just like we do now in other areas that people want to move to. This has been going on for as long as humans have moved around the planet. > What may not continue is how we currently live. "How we currently live" has already changed massively in the past century or two. Of course it will continue to change, and of course people should be aware of that and should be planning accordingly. But there is no need for alarmism about it.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    I don’t think you know what you are talking about. It’s hard to build adequate infrastructure on melting permafrost. One can’t naively think, “we’ll just build what is needed” without taking into consideration the conditions. Humans have not always done this as we migrated throughout our history at the scale that would be required if hundreds of millions of people migrate to Siberia. The supply chain issues these past two years shows how fragile our globalized system is to shocks. Increasing the air temperature a few degrees centigrade means massively increasing the energy into the weather system.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
But the article doesn't disagree about that ? The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century, and things might continue to get worse from there. So the article explores the less likely scenarios that might happen in the higher temperature ranges.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century A couple of degrees from the "pre-industrial" baseline, which is as of something like 1750, not now. From now to mid-century is only a couple of tenths of a degree. In other words, we have already adapted to most of the "couple of degrees" of change. > things might continue to get worse from there. "Continue to get worse" implies that things are already getting worse and have been over the past few centuries while the "couple of degrees" of temperature rise was taking place. That's not the case. > the article explores the less likely scenarios Which all fail to take human adaptation into account. That has always been the problem with alarmist predictions like this.

by pdonis 4y ago

hollerith 4y ago

>extreme cold causes more deaths [than extreme heat] How would you convince a skeptic that that is actually true?

pdonis 4y ago
https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths https://www.lomborg.com/the-heresy-of-heat-and-cold-deaths Or, if you are wondering if Lomborg is a partisan source, look at the study in The Lancet that he references: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
- hollerith 4y ago
  Thanks.

syzarian 4y ago

The focus on temperature is a bit off in my opinion. Warming the planet by a few degrees centigrade should be thought of as massively increasing energy into the weather system. This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order. There is also the fact that making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people. It’s a much better investment of time/wealth to spend it on mitigation than what humanity currently focuses on. Life on Earth will continue regardless of what we do. What may not continue is how we currently live.

pdonis 4y ago
> Warming the planet by a few degrees centigrade should be thought of as massively increasing energy into the weather system. But it doesn't, not "massively". "Warming" here means increasing air temperatures, but the atmosphere is tiny considered as a heat sink. > This will necessitate a period of dramatic “turbulence” (wild local swings) while a new equilibrium is established. This will potentially cause massive disruption in the world order. Alarmists might claim this, but there isn't any evidence for it. A far more likely source of disruption in the world order is alarmist claims themselves. > making areas like Siberia more habitable in terms of temperature isn’t exactly helpful if it doesn’t have soil conducive to growing food or for enough infrastructure to house large numbers of people. People already manage to grow things in Siberia (and in some colder parts of Canada) despite the temperature. That will only improve as the region warms. As for infrastructure, that's what adaptation is for: as more people want to move there, you build the infrastructure. Just like we do now in other areas that people want to move to. This has been going on for as long as humans have moved around the planet. > What may not continue is how we currently live. "How we currently live" has already changed massively in the past century or two. Of course it will continue to change, and of course people should be aware of that and should be planning accordingly. But there is no need for alarmism about it.
- syzarian 4y ago
  I don’t think you know what you are talking about. It’s hard to build adequate infrastructure on melting permafrost. One can’t naively think, “we’ll just build what is needed” without taking into consideration the conditions. Humans have not always done this as we migrated throughout our history at the scale that would be required if hundreds of millions of people migrate to Siberia. The supply chain issues these past two years shows how fragile our globalized system is to shocks. Increasing the air temperature a few degrees centigrade means massively increasing the energy into the weather system.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

But the article doesn't disagree about that ? The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century, and things might continue to get worse from there. So the article explores the less likely scenarios that might happen in the higher temperature ranges.

pdonis 4y ago
> The issue is that a couple of degrees is likely to be reached this mid-century A couple of degrees from the "pre-industrial" baseline, which is as of something like 1750, not now. From now to mid-century is only a couple of tenths of a degree. In other words, we have already adapted to most of the "couple of degrees" of change. > things might continue to get worse from there. "Continue to get worse" implies that things are already getting worse and have been over the past few centuries while the "couple of degrees" of temperature rise was taking place. That's not the case. > the article explores the less likely scenarios Which all fail to take human adaptation into account. That has always been the problem with alarmist predictions like this.